Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner’s recent trip to Ethiopia has become controversial due to allegations of seeking a personal safari during official duties, raising questions about the use of taxpayer money.
Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister and Local Government Secretary, recently faced scrutiny over a trip to Ethiopia that occurred last month, during which she reportedly sought to incorporate a personal safari excursion into her official itinerary. The visit intended to foster diplomatic relations and facilitate an investment agreement has been overshadowed by claims regarding the use of taxpayer funds for personal enjoyment.
Upon her arrival in Ethiopia, Rayner participated in meetings with regional leaders and was involved in signing an investment deal aimed at strengthening ties and promoting economic collaboration between the UK and Ethiopia. However, sources from within the government revealed that Rayner expressed interest in taking a private safari tour, raising questions about the appropriateness of such a request during an official visit. Officials reportedly advised against this, emphasising that “such an excursion for personal enjoyment is not how these things worked.”
Despite the controversy, Rayner’s team has not denied the allegations regarding the safari. In a statement to The Times, they highlighted that her trip was focused on “diplomatic business and humanitarian engagements to demonstrate the UK’s commitment to the region and promote ambitions for partnerships and mutual economic growth.”
The financial implications of the trip have also been a point of contention. The total cost for the government’s mission to Ethiopia reportedly exceeded £20,000, with Ms Rayner and several officials flying in business class. This expenditure has particularly drawn the ire of critics, especially given previous criticisms directed at the Conservative government regarding perceived waste of taxpayer money on official travel.
Kevin Hollinrake, a Conservative MP and Ms Rayner’s counterpart in the local government department, commented on the situation, suggesting that Rayner should prioritise her responsibilities at home over international excursions. He stated, “You’d think she’d have enough on her plate dealing with the realities of setting a totally unrealistic target of building 1.5 million homes, abolishing every district and county council in England, and trying to save the high street from the disastrous impact of massive tax hikes and new employment red tape.” Hollinrake added, “Clearly she has more important things to do swanning around the world.”
In response to the backlash, a spokesperson for Labour leader Keir Starmer defended Rayner’s trip, asserting that it aligned with the government’s broader international objectives. The trip has sparked discussions about the use of public resources for government officials’ travel arrangements and the balance between diplomatic duties and personal desires.
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
9
Notes:
The narrative is recent, referencing a trip that occurred last month. However, the absence of specific dates or confirmatory updates suggests it may not completely reflect the current status.
Quotes check
Score:
7
Notes:
Kevin Hollinrake’s quote is directly referenced, but without a clear original source or date. The lack of primary sourcing reduces the score.
Source reliability
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative originates from a known publication, the Daily Express, which can be viewed as somewhat reliable but may also have a political bias.
Plausability check
Score:
8
Notes:
The claims about Angela Rayner’s trip and the controversy surrounding taxpayer funds are plausible. However, the narrative could benefit from more concrete evidence regarding the safari excursion.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): OPEN
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
While the narrative appears to be recent and from a somewhat reliable publication, the lack of primary sources for quotes and insufficient confirmation of key details reduces confidence in its accuracy.
